The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes for Members to debate petitions; this can be extended at the Mayor’s discretion.

Petiton: Increase measurements of air polluting and health damaging particulates

 a) The Mayor to invite the Lead Petitioner to address the meeting (5 minutes maximum)

b) The Mayor to invite the relevant Cabinet Member to speak, including proposing any recommendation in the report (5 minutes maximum)

c) The Mayor to ask for the motion to be seconded

d) Motions without Notice (other than those detailed in Part 2 C13 of the constitution) will not be allowed.

e) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors to speak (5 minutes maximum each)

f) The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply)

Members debated a petition requesting the council to increase measurements of air polluting and health damaging particulates.

Thomas Wigley, lead petitioner, addressed the meeting. Mr Wigley highlighted that over 200 residents had signed the petition; he thanked the Maidenhead Great Park team for their efforts. He wanted to explain why a better regime to measure toxic particulates was needed. Particulates were toxic and could cause premature death. They could cause irregular heartbeats in young people. The World Health Organisation (WHO), the government, and the council knew that particulates were bad for health. Particulates were tiny bits of solid suspended in the air. PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 caused the most concern. The latter were the most toxic because they were so tiny, they entered the bloodstream from the lungs and then got carried to organs which got damaged. Particulates were created by diesel, petrol and electric vehicles. Their engines, brakes and tyres all wore down. Aircraft too created ultra-fine particles that drifted over long distances. There were five AQMAs in the borough due to traffic pollution. This was bad news if you lived in Bray or Holyport, where the M4 now had 33% more capacity as a Smart Motorway; if you lived near the busy A308 corridor; if you lived in Windsor which had two AQMAs and the busiest junction in the borough; if you lived near Wraysbury with 16 lanes of traffic on the A308 and M25; if you lived in Maidenhead as the proposed development would generate increased traffic; or if you lived under any of the Heathrow flightpaths.  

Mr Wigley asserted that one PM₁₀ particulate measuring site in Frascati Way could not possibly provide information on pollution across the borough measuring 190 square miles. There was currently no measurement of PM_2.5, instead it was modelled from the PM₁₀ figures from a single source in Maidenhead. The borough must measure much more than it did now, which was what the petition requested. The report stated there was no money and no need to extend measurements therefore it recommended doing nothing. The justification was that the current data did not suggest there was a need to extend the current network.  Mr Wigley suggested this was a case of ‘don’t look, don’t find’. He felt it was surely self-evident that there were many significant sources of particulates in the borough. The report said extending the monitoring would cost money and resources must be prioritised. Mr Wigley questioned why health was not considered a priority. The Director of Public Health for East Berkshire had not been consulted in compiling the report before Members and neither were residents. The report stated correctly that there was currently no statutory requirement to measure PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. This was not a sensible justification given the specific local issues he had outlined. Slough and Spelthorne measured PM_2.5 and Slough had five PM₁₀ stations. Particulate pollution affected everyone and there were no safe pollution limits. The ‘no money, no need’ stance was dismissive and dangerous.

Councillor Cannon thanked the petitioner for bringing the important matter to council, to give Members the opportunity to debate it and see what proposals other councillors had to address air quality in the borough. He explained that air quality monitoring and improvement was already part of the Corporate Plan 2021-26 that had been agreed by the Council in November 2021. It identified a goal to Achieve the National Air Quality Objective (AQO) across all Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) by 2025, within the goals to take action to tackle climate change and its consequences and improve the natural environment.

The petition wording itself was somewhat misleading in stating that ‘There are five Air Quality Measurement Areas in the Borough, where air pollution is acknowledged as a problem.’ The council did not acknowledge such problems as the assumptions being made were not based on data, which was an issue in itself, that he accepted.

In view of this, he wished to propose an amendment to the recommendation to read

The council agrees to continue the current monitoring regime and report back to members with 2022 results but also commits to 3 additional monitoring stations for Monitoring PM10 and PM2.5 to provide data for the council to base air quality monitoring and actions moving forward.

This council was already committed to improving air quality for its residents in the Corporate Plan and the commitment would provide the data on which to base decisions.

Councillor Davies thanked Tom Wigley, the Maidenhead Great Park team and all the residents who had worked together to gather over two thousand signatures. She was delighted that the administration had listened to the residents. At full Council in November 2021, the Council had passed a motion to review the borough’s Air Quality Improvement Action Plan in the light of updated WHO Guidelines. It was now November 2022 and Members were being asked to agree that a review of monitoring results for 2022 be published in 2023 to help inform future decisions on air quality monitoring in the future, taking it to 2024. This was the very definition of kicking the can down the road.

Councillor Davies stated that it was not a ‘nice to have’ extra. Airborne particulates were a contributing factor in the onset of heart disease, cancer, and dementia, and they particularly affected the most vulnerable in society.

Air quality in the borough may be worse than was known because the council was not measuring all the pollutants and could be missing particulates hotspots. In fact, emerging expert opinion was that technology had advanced to the point where a dense network of low-cost sensors could be used, especially in areas of high population density. In combination with more expensive fixed measurement stations, they identified the local emissions which were under local control, and so empowered local decision making. Councillor Cannon had asked for suggestions from councillors so looking into that technology was her suggestion, to get a really good granular picture of wat was actually happening and where the hotspots were.

Councillor Brar commented that the report was misleading. Comparing 2016 with Covid years to demonstrate progress was against guidance. In pre-Covid years, the report showed existing NO₂ diffuser sites, in excess of the limit in almost all AQMAs. It should be assumed that NO₂ levels were an indicator of PM_2.5.  In short, it was already known that PM_2.5 was too high for good health.

In supporting the petition in principle, the proposed solution of Casella Guardian PM_2.5 monitors was unsuitable.  Expert advice should be sought before deciding on any deeper monitoring which would be required in any case for new legislation. The council should though focus resources on reducing traffic emissions and citizen exposure not just getting DEFRA sign off on a report.

However, the Local Plan would increase traffic significantly in such areas as alongside the golf course, and in her ward of Cookham where the Inspector even recognised traffic was today, and would be, ‘frustrating for residents and commuters.’ The council should take an immediate approach to understanding pollution hotspots beyond the existing five AQMAs that had remained largely the same for 15 years. A zonal, low-cost, NO₂ diffuser site deployment which measured mean and could indicate peak hotspots should be implemented. Diffuser tubes cost £5 for a month’s collection and reporting on Cookham High Street. 10 could be deployed at £600 per annum and could be managed by ‘Citizen Science’ volunteers, as elsewhere in the country.

Councillor Brar proposed the council determine, with the assistance of the petition leaders, four other sites in addition to Cookham. This approach was advised by an air monitoring expert that had intimate knowledge of the existing AQMA deployments.

Councillor Brar summarised that she did not agree with the status quo recommendation of the rather complacent report and proposed the fifth option supporting the petition: Take expert advice before any deeper AQMA monitoring but immediately define and implement a traffic emission reduction plan with an approach, certainly in building development locations, to limit citizen exposure. Further hots spots should be monitored with the low cost NO₂ diffuser tube expansion in Cookham and elsewhere. There was no safe limit to air pollution. The likely existing PM_2.5 level approximated to 6-8 deaths per month in RBWM, let alone long-term health conditions.

Councillor Hill commented that in the UK air pollution was the largest environmental risk to public health. Annual mortality of human-made air pollution was roughly 28,000 - 36,000 livers per year. The estimated cost to the NHS and Social Care in the period 2017- 2025 was £1.6 billion. Air pollution affected all ages and knew no bounds and gave rise to the following conditions: low birth weight, diabetes, high blood pressure, developmental disability, obesity, delayed lung development, asthma, lung cancer, reduced life expectancy, accelerated reduction in lung function, dementia, heart attack, heart failure and stroke.

Councillor Hill referred to a number of recent air pollution reports in the press:

“Healthy teenagers at risk of irregular heartbeats from air pollution” The Guardian, September 2022.

“Coroner calls for law change after air pollution identified as a factor in Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death” BBC News, April 2021.

“Toxic air pollution particles found in lungs and brains of unborn babies” The Guardian October 2022

“Air pollution is ‘likely’ to raise dementia risk, findings of UK government experts” The Guardian July 2022

Councillor Hill concluded that air pollution was deadly. Failure to monitor air pollution fully was to fail on public health grounds because the scale of the problem was not understood, and it was not known where in the borough action was needed. Failure to vote for the motion was to condemn residents to a major health risk and potentially life-threatening medical conditions.

Councillor Davey explained that 20 years previously he had suffered a pulmonary embolism which was blamed on a flight, but he knew what it was like to worry about what was flying around in the air. He had looked at AccuWeather earlier in the day, the particulate report was ‘18 - excellent’. The WHO measure was 10 and the UK standard was 40. The PM₁₀ unit was 18; PM_2.5 was 17; NO₂ was 16; O₃ was 10; SO₂ was 2; CO was 1. This aggregated to 64. It could not be right to deal with everything as 40. There was a need to reassess as the compound effect had to be destructive. Councillor Davey welcomed the proposal for three units but asked for specifics on dates.

Councillor Walters commented that the Conservative government at the present time recognised air pollution was one of the gravest sources of bad health. In the summer of 2022 Bray parish council had had a report prepared by the University of Kent on eight different sites in the parish. All eight exceeded the WHO figures. The WHO figures were guidance rather than binding. The proposed amendment would move the council much closer to the figures.

Councillor Clark commented that tacking air pollution had been in the council’s plans, but the petition had helped to focus minds.  It was clear more monitoring was needed, and he welcomed the amendment. Monitoring was part of a bigger, moving picture.  Construction would doubtless make pollution in the construction phase. However, there were also advances in sustainable building in terms of the net environmental impact over a building’s lifecycle and improvements about sustainable transport. If benefits brought drawbacks, it was important to look at the phasing and how that married in with the other sources of pollutants. The M4 corridor was an area of pollution. Numbers in open green space were better. It was the duty of the council to monitor, but also to have a plan to make sure development became sustainable and minimised pollution, and sustainable transport infrastructure was encouraged. Car use was a personal choice, and all needed to be aware of the impact of their lifestyle and choices. It was a challenge to make people understand their impact, and to influence their choices to minimise impacts.

Councillor Stimson commented that as Councillor Clark had explained, all issues were interconnected. She highlighted that the council was using the UK’s first sustainability charity BioRegional to create a Supplementary Planning Document to sit over the planning framework for future development. It was important not just to measure but to follow up with the Corporate Plan to reduce pollution.

Councillor Carroll commented that it was an important debate. There was a clear case for measurement and reassurance in introducing the additional monitoring stations. The Director of Public Health had been mentioned; he had been involved in the broader discussions and he had responded directly to the lead petitioner. He had pointed out that measurement was a key element but so was modelling to look at data and trends. The Director was looking at Defra guidance on this.

Councillor Johnson thanked the lead petitioner for bringing forward the debate.  The proposed amendment should not be a surprise as it was enshrined in the Corporate Plan that affirmative action would be taken to reduce emissions including particulates across the borough.  The administration had also supported a proposal, albeit a year ago, to continue to work to address air quality improvements across the borough.  Hard data should always from the basis of decision making. There was a need for additional stations to add clarity.

Councillor Price commented that the Corporate Plan stated the council achieve the national air quality objectives in all AQMAs by 2025. The government was working on legislation to reduce the objectives. The proposal before Members was just to start measuring; there was a long way to go to achieve the objective and she did not think it was feasible in the timescale proposed. Councillor Price had personally given up cycling because she had to cycle though the AQMA in Windsor to get anywhere. She also questioned how much the proposal was going to cost as that information had not been provided.

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that she supported the additional monitoring, but it was only the start of the journey. Medical evidence showed that all age groups were affected by particulates. As a retired midwife she wanted to speak on behalf of the children yet to be born. There was evidence of an increased risk of low birth weight, congenital malformations, and neo-natal morbidity. It also increased the mother’s health risks including pre-eclampsia, hypertension and gestational diabetes. Elected Members needed to take the issue seriously. There was a need to act fast and now, to take the data and come up with a robust action plan to meet the national requirements that had been signed up to.

Councillor Singh commented that he had attended the protest by many concerned residents.  There was a significant amount of development in his ward of St Mary’s. Had appropriate measurements been in place 24 months ago perhaps some of the dense developments would not have taken place.

Councillor Luxton commented that a decision in relation to additional charging points for electric vehicle had been called in recently. Given earlier concerns raised about additional pollution from electric vehicles, she questioned whether they should be brought in.

Councillor Larcombe explained that he had lived in Datchet for 45 years. Each morning he saw oil bubbles on his windscreen from the planes flying overhead. Pollution also came from the traffic backed up in the village as vehicles waited to cross the railway line. Wraysbury was affected by pollution from Junction 13 of the M25. The council was talking about monitoring but at the same time the situation was getting worse. Another 80 houses in Datchet as a result of the Borough Local Plan squeezed in between the M4 and London Road. Another 20 houses in Coppermill road to fill out the last green space in that road. Off the Wraysbury Road a contractors’ site was used during the improvements to Junction 13. The trees had been chopped down and they seem to be there permanently without any planning permission.

Councillor Cannon commented that the council had listened to the petitioners and taking action as requested to improve monitoring. He could not see how anyone could object to the proposal.

It was proposed by Councillor Cannon, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Full Council notes the Petition and:

i)           Agrees to continue the current monitoring regime and report back to Members with 2022 results but also commits to 3 additional monitoring stations for Monitoring PM10 and PM2.5 to provide data for the council to base air quality monitoring and actions moving forward.